PB95-964043
EPA/ROD/R04-95/262
June 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Jacksonville Naval Air Station,
Operable Unit 2, FL
9/21/1995
-------
IN I bHJM KhUUKU Oh UbUbiGN
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION (PSC) 42
OPERABLE UNIT 2
NAVAL AIR STATION JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
Unit Identification Code (UIC): N00207
Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/076
Prepared by:
ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
2590 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Prepared for:
Department of the Navy, Southern Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
2155 Eagle Drive
North Charleston, South Carolina 29418
Dana Gaskins, Code 1857, Engineer-in-Charge
June 1995
-------
S£P 2 1 1935
4WD-FFB
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Captain R. D. Whitmire
Commanding Officer
Naval Air Station
Jacksonville, Florida 32212-5000
SUBJ: Interim Remedial Action Record of Decision
Operable Unit Two - PSC 42
NAS Jacksonville, EPA I.D. FL6 170 024 412
Dear Captain Whitmire :
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
reviewed the Department of the Navy's Interim Remedial Action
Record of Decision (IROD) for Operable Unit Two - PSC .42 at Naval
Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) , as amended. EPA concurs with the findings and the
selected remedy presented in the IROD.
Sincerely,
A\
John H. Hankinson, Jr.
Regional Administrator
cc: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Captain R. S. Tyler, USN, Commanding Officer
Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command
-------
CERTIFICATION OF TECHNICAL
DATA CONFORMITY (MAY 1987)
The Contractor, ABB Environmental Services, Inc., hereby certifies that,
te-the best of its knowledge and belief, the technical data delivered herewith
under Contract No. N62467-89-D-0317/76 are complete and accurate, and they comply
with all requirements of this contract.
DATE:
June 2. 1995
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Peter Redfern
Task Order Manager
NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL: Mike Dunawav
Project Technical Lead
(DFAR 252.227-7036)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Interim Record of Decision
PSC 42 at OU 2
NAS Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Rorida
Chapter Title Page No .
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION 1-1
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION 1-1
1.2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE 1-1
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE 1-1
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 1-1
1.5 STATUTORY STATEMENT 1-10
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY . . . .1-10
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY 2-1
2.1 SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2-2
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION 2-3
2.5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS 2-3
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 2-4
2.7 SELECTED REMEDY 2-5
2.8 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 2-5
2.9 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 2-6
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Responsiveness Summary
IHOD_PSC.42
ASW~08.95
-------
GLOSSARY
ABB-tS ABB Environmental Services, Inc.
AOC area of concern
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
CAA Clean Air Act
CAMU corrective action management units
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPC contaminants of potential concern
CWA Clean Water Act
FAC
FDEP
FDER
FFA
FRE
FRI
FFS
FS
FOTW
IROD
O&M
OSHA
OU
PAH
PA/SI
PCBs
PM10
POTW
PSC
RCRA
RI
Florida Administrative Code
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Federal Facility Agreement
Focused Risk Evaluation
Focused Remedial Investigation
Focused Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
federally owned treatment works
Interim Record of Decision
LQR_ Land Disposal Restrictions
LNAPL light nonaqueous-phase liquid
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
Mg/kg micrograms per kilogram
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NAS Naval Air Station
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
operation and maintenance
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Operable Unit
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection
polychlorinated biphenyls
particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
potential source of contamination
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
IROD PSC.42
Asw'oe.ss
-------
GLOSSARY (Continued)
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizacion Ac;
SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds
TAL cargee analyte list
TCL target compound list
TC toxicity characteristic
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TSD treatment, storage, and disposal
TU temporary units
USC United States Code
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOCs volatile organic compounds
IROO PSC.42
ASW~06.95 -JV-
-------
1.0 DECLARATION FOR THE INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION
1.1 SITE NAME AND LOCATION. The sice name is Operable Unit (OU) 2, Potential
source of contamination (PSC) 42 (wastewater treatment plant effluent polishing
pond) located at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville in Jacksonville, Florida
.'.Figures 1-1, 1-2. and 1-3).
1. 2 STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE. This decision document presents the selected
interim remedial action for source control at PSC 42 at OU 2, NAS Jacksonville.
The selected action was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.
This decision document explains the factual basis and rationale for selecting the
interim remedy at PSC 42. The information supporting this interim remedial action
decision is contained in the Administrative Record for this site, which is located
at the Charles D. Webb Wesconnett Branch of the Jacksonville Public Library.
The purpose of the interim remedial action for PSC 42 is to lower the risk of
potential future exposure to humans and the environment by reducing the
leachability of contaminated media at PSC 42 to groundwater, and to close the pond'
in accordance with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure
requirements. Upon completion of the overall Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for OU 2, the need for remedial action to address
groundwater contamination will be evaluated. A complete RCRA closure of PSC 42
will be addressed in the overall RI/FS for OU 2.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the State of Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) concur on the selected interim
remedy.
1.3 ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE. Actual or threatened releases of metals from the
site, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in the
Interim Record of Decision (IROD), may violate RCRA closure requirements, and
leave a potential groundwater contaminant. If not addressed, this could present
a future risk to human health and the environment.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OP THE SELECTED REMEDY. OU 2 is one of three OUs presently
identified at NAS Jacksonville, Florida. This section describes the selected
remedy for PSC 42, the wastewater treatment plant effluent polishing pond, at OU
2.
The preferred interim action for source control at PSC 42 is Alternative 3,
developed and evaluated in the Focused Remedial Investigation and Focused
Feasibility Study (FRI/FFS) for PSCs 3 and 42 at OU 2. Alternative 3 proposes
stabilizing the pond sludge and the standing pond water in situ. This and other
alternatives considered for PSC 42 are summarized in Table 1-1. The major
components of the selected remedy include:
IROD_PSC.*2
Asw"oe.99 1-1
-------
CK8ONVH.LE
VAL AIR STATION
^JACKSONVILLE
DAYTONA BEACH
Atlantic
Ocean
Gulf of Mexico
FIGURE 1-1
FACILITY LOCATION MAP
INTERIM RECORD OF
DECISION FOR PSC 42
AT OU 2
NAS JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
NA8 JACKSONVILLE-
2500
SCALE: 1" = 2500'
FIGURE 1-2
FACILITY MAP AND LOCATION
OF OU 2
-2f- -95
INTERIM RECORD OF
DECISION FOR PSC 42
AT OU 2
NAS JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
TIMUOUANA
COUNTRY CU>6 -
>
POUSHMO POND
(PfC 42)
400
— 20— SURFACE CONTOUR
(FEET. N.G.V.D. 1929)
FIGURE 1-3
LOCATION OF PSC 42,
POLISHING POND
INTERIM RECORD OF
DECISION FOR PSC 42
AT OU 2
NAS JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
-------
Table 1-1
Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42
Interim Record of Decision. Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville. Florida
Criterion
Alternative 1: Onsite ax-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
;ion of the treated polishing pond
sludge without containment.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally owned treatment works
(FOTW).
Alternative 2: Offsite stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed polishing pond sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment, and discharge to the
FOTW.
Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
of the polishing pond sludge and
any surface water.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
How risks are eliminat-
ed, reduced, or con-
trolled
Alternative 1 would provide an
increased level of protection of
human health and the environ-
ment. By stabilizing the sludge,
contaminant migration is mini-
mized thereby reducing the risks
posed by the contaminants.
Following pretreatment contami-
nant concentrations are reduced
to acceptable levels that would
not pose a threat to human
health and environment.
No short-term or cross-media
effects are expected for the im-
plementation of this alternative.
This alternative will comply with
all ARARs concerned. It will also
comply with the RCRA closure
plan approved for PSC 42 at OU
2.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
The magnitude of residual risk
due to the sludge at the site is
minimal. The stabilization pro-
cess used to stabilize the sludge
will reduce the possibility of con-
taminants leaching to the
groundwater as well as direct
exposure. There will be no resid-
ual risk from the surface water
since it will undergo pretreat-
ment prior to discharge to the
FOTW.
Short-term or
cross-media effects
Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-, location-,
and action-specific
ARARs
Magnitude of residual
risk
Adequacy of Controls
Stabilization processes have
been determined to be long term
source control technologies.
Therefore, the sludge will have
long term source control. Since
the surface water will be treated
onsite prior to discharge to the
FOTW and final discharge to the
St. Johns River according to
NPOES regulations, source con-
trol will not be an issue.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1. However, since the
sludge is treated and disposed
offsite, there will be no contami-
nant migration.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
There will be no residual risk
from the sludge since it will be
treated and disposed offsite.
Also, there will be no residual
risk from the surface water since
it will undergo pretreatment prior
to discharge to the FOTW.
The analysis will be the same as
for alternative 1 with the excep-
tion that the sludge will be treat-
ed and disposed offsite.
Alternative 3 would provide an
increased level of protection of
human health and the environ-
ment. By stabilizing the sludge
and surface water, contaminant
migration is minimized, thereby
reducing the risks posed by the
contaminants. ,
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
The magnitude of residual risk
due to the sludge and surface
water at the site is minimal. The
stabilization process used to
stabilize the sludge and surface
water will reduce the possibility
of contaminants leaching to the
groundwater as well as direct
exposure.
The analysis will be the same as
for alternative 1 with the excep-
tion that the sludge and the
surface water will be stabilized
and will have long-term source
control.
See notes at end of table.
|ROD_PSC.42
Asw~ba.95
1-5
-------
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42
Interim Record of Decision. Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville. Florida
Criterion
Alternative 1: Onsite ex-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
tion of the treated polishing pond
sludge without containment.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally owned treatment works
(FOTW).
Alternative 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed polishing pond sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment, and discharge to the
FOTW.
Alternative 3: In-situ staoilization
of the polishing pond sludge and
any surface water.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence—continued
Reliability of controls Stabilization is a highly reliable
source control technology.
Reduction of Mobirty, Toxicity, or Volume
Treatment process and The sludge would be treated
remedy
Amount of hazardous
material destroyed or
treated
Reduction of mobility,
toxicity, or volume
through treatment
Irreversibility of treat-
ment
onsite, ex-situ and disposed
onsite without containment. The
surface water will be treated
onsite, sent to the FOTW and
then discharged to the St. Johns
River.
The total sludge volume of ap-
proximately 9,000 cubic yards
and 4 million gallons of surface
water will be stabilized and treat-
ed respectively.
The mobility and the toxicity of
the sludge contaminants will be
reduced due to the binding that
takee place between the contam-
inants and the additives. How-
ever, the volume of the sludge
would increase after the treat-
ment process due to the addi-
tives that will be introduced
during the treatment process.
This volume increase will be in
the range of 20 to SO percent.
The toxjcity of the surface water
will also be reduced after the
pretreatment and treatment at
the FOTW, however, the water
will be discharged to the St.
Johna River. There will be no
increment in the treated volume
of surface water.
Stabilization processes are highly
irreversible on the long term. In
other words, the bonds between
the contaminants and the addi-
tives do not reverse on the long
term. The treatment of surface
water is also irreversible.
Since the sludge is treated and
disposed offsite, this alternative
gives the best controls of the
three alternatives.
The treatment process and the
remedy is the same as for alter-
native 1, however, the sludge
will be treated and disposed
offsite.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1. However, the treat-
ment and disposal of the sludge
is done offsite and therefore, this
alternative best reduce* the
mobility, toxicity and the volume
of the sludge.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
The sludge and surface water
will be treated in-situ, ensile.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1 with the exception of
the surface water being stabi-
lized as well as the sludge.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1. However, since the
stabilization is done in-situ the
reduction of mobility and toxicity
could be less than is alternative
1. The volume of the stabilized
mass including surface water
and sludge will be increased in
the range of 4O to 50 percent
with the addition of stabilizing
reagents.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1. However, since the
mixing is done in-situ the revers-
ibility could be more in this alter-
native.
See notes at end of table.
IHOO_PSC.*2
ASW~06.95
1-6
-------
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42
interim Record of Decision. Operable unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Florida
Criterion
Alternative 1: Onsite ex-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
tion of the treated polishing pond
sludge without containment.
Oewatenng of the surface water
in the polishing pcnd, pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally owned treatment works
(FOTW).
Alternative 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed polishing pond sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment, and discharge to the
FOTW.
Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
of the polishing pond sludge and
any surface water.
Reduction of Moblity, Toxicrty, or Volume--continued
Type and quantity of
treatment residual
Short-Term Effectiveness
Protection of communi-
ty during remedial ac-
tion
Protection of workers
during remedial actions
Environmental effects
Time until remedial
action objectives are
achieved
The treatment residual of the
sludge would be a solid material
with an increase in volume in the
range of 20 to 50 percent of the
original sludge volume. The
treated surface water would be
a liquid with no change in vol-
ume.
If required, dust and noise con-
trol would be implemented dur-
ing dredging and dewatering
operations. Volatilization of
sludge contaminants would be
monitored during dredging opera-
tions. Work area would be
fenced off to control access.
Workers would be required to
follow an approved Health and
Safety Flan. Underground utili-
ties in the vicinity will be located
and staked before intrusive
work. There are risks associated
with operating stabilization and
dewatering equipment which will
be addressed in the Health and
Safety Plan.
No effects are expected to the
groundwater. Releases of con-
taminants or paniculate to air are
expected to have minimal envi-
ronmental effect.
Approximately 3 to 6 months
would be required to complete
the project.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1 except that during trans-
port of sludge the volatilization
of the sludge contaminants will
be controlled with foam and
covering.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Approximately 3 to 6 months
would be required to complete
the project.
The treatment residual of the
sludge and surface water would
be solid material with an in-
crease in volume in the range of
40 to 50 percent..
Berming and lining of the pond
perimeter during stabilization will
prevent pond overflow. Volatil-
ization of sludge contaminants
would be monitored during stabi-
lization operations. Work area
would be fenced off to control
access.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Approximately 2 to 4 months
would be required to complete
the project.
See notes at end of table.
IROOJ>SC.42
ASw'o8.95
1-7
-------
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42
Interim Record of Decision. OperaDle Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville. Florida
Criterion
Alternative 1: Onsite ex-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
tion of the treated polishing pond
sludge without containment.
Dewatermg of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally owned treatment works
(FOTW).
Alter native 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed polishing pond sludge.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment, and discharge to the
FOTW.
Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
of the polishing pond sludge and
any surface water.
ImpUmentablrty
Ability to construct
technology
Reliability of technology
Ease of undertaking
additional remedial ac-
tion, if necessary
Monitoring consider-
ations
Coordination with other
agencies
Stabilization is a widely used
technology in metal contamina-
tion. Stabilization vendors con-
duct their work onsite (i.e.,
using mobile unit) or offsite
(i.e., at or near a disposal facili-
ty). Dewatering companies are
located locally. The handling
of the sludge material will be
the most difficult in this alter-
native.
Stabilization is a proven technol-
ogy for sludge contaminated
with metals. Many proven tech-
nologies exist for pretreatment of
the water pollutant present.
Implementation of this alterna-
tive would pose no impediment
to additional remediation.
Air monitoring would be con-
ducted as appropriate during
excavation and transportation.
Coordination with NAS Jackson-
villa personnel would be required
for the duration of remedial
activities. Coordination with
USEPA, FDEP, county and land-
fill regulatory agencies would be
necessary.
Analysis is the same as for
Alternative 1.
Analysis is the tame as for Alter-
native 1. Regulated landfills are
designed and constructed to
minimize leaching of contami-
nants.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for
Alternative 1. The handling of
the sludge material.and surface
water will be the least difficult
in this alternative.
Onsite stabilization has been
implemented successfully at
other sites with similar waste
streams. Unlike regulated land-
fills, onsite in situ stabilization
does not have leaching or runoff
control protocols.
Care would have to be taken to
avoid unnecessary disturbance
of the stabilized treated wastes
when undertaking additional
investigations or remedial ac-
tions. Disturbing these areas is
undesirable because it may
provide pathways for reversal of
treatment and weakening of the
structural integrity of the stabi-
lized media.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
See total cost and notes on following page.
IROD_PSC.42
ASV/00.95
1-8
-------
Table 1-1 (Continued)
Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives for PSC 42
Interim Record of Decision. Operabie Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville. Rorida
Criterion
Alternative 1: Onsite ax-situ
stabilization and onsite re-deposi-
tion of the treated polishing pond
sludge without containment.
Dewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment and discharge to the Feder-
ally owned treatment works
(FOTW).
Alternative 2: Off site stabilization
and offsite disposal of the treat-
ed polishing pond sludge.
Oewatering of the surface water
in the polishing pond, pretreat-
ment, and discharge to the
FOTW.
Alternative 3: In-situ stabilization
of the polishing pond sludge and
any surface water.
lmpUm«ntabirfy--con-
tinued
Availability and capaci-
ty of treatment, stor-.
age, and disposal ser-
vices
Stabilization will be conducted in
an onsite stabilization unit. This
unit will have enough capacity to
process 9,000 cubic yards of
sludge. The pond has enough
capacity for the redeposition of
the treated material. The FOTW
has a treatment capacity of
about 3 million gallons/day and it
currently runs at half its capaci-
ty.
The analysis is the same as for
alternative 1, however, the stabi-
lization and disposal will be con-
ducted offsite. The facility
where the stabilization is done
should have enough capacity to
process 9,000 cubic yards of
sludge. Also, the facility would
use up about 12,000 cubic yards
of capacity (assuming 50 percent
increase in volume due to stabili-
zation).
Ability to obtain approv- Once the Interim Record of Deci- Analysis is the same as for Alter-
als from other agencies sion (IROD) is signed the approv- native 1.
al from the USEPA and the FDEP
is granted. Other local regulato-
ry approval will be obtained
before remedial action begins.
TOTAL COST 3,520,000 6,050.850 (without contingen-
cy for transportation)
Stabilization will be conducted in
situ for the sludge material and
surface water. A volume in-
crease of 40 to 50 percent is
expected. Berming and lining
the pond perimeter will (be
necessary to prevent pond
overflow and provide additional
treatment capacity.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
Analysis is the same as for Alter-
native 1.
2,605,000
Notes: PSC = potential source of contamination.
RI/FS = Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
NAS = Naval Air Station.
ARARs = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
OU = operable unit.
VOCs = volatile organic compound*.
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FDEP = Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
O&M = operating and maintenance.
IROO_PSC.*2
ASW.06.95
1-9
-------
• site preparation and installation of the Ln sic-j mobile stabilisation unit.
berming and lining the area surrounding the pond perimeter to prevent pond
overflow.
in sicu stabilization of polishing pond sludge and water, and
demobilization and site restoration.
Implementation of the interim action will lower the risk of potential future exposure
to humans and the environment by reducing the leachability of contaminated media, and
will close PSC 42 in accordance with RCRA closure requirements. The Navy estimates
that the preferred alternative will cost $2,605,000 to construct and will take 2 to
4 months to implement.
1.5 STATUTORY STATEMENT. This interim action is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for this limited scope of action, and is cost effective. Tables
1-2 and 1-3 summarize ARARs for the interim remedial action. Although this interim
action is not intended to fully address the statutory mandate for permanence .and
treatment to the maximum extent practicable, this action uses treatment for
contaminated materials and debris and, thus, is in furtherance of that statutory
mandate. Because this action does not constitute the final remedy for contaminated
groundwater at OU 2, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatments that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element will be addressed by the]
final response action(s) for groundwater. This interim action does address the
"Treduption of toxicity and mobility for contaminated materials (soil) considered in
this remedy. Subsequent actions are planned to address the potential threats posed
by the conditions in the groundwater at OU 2.
Because this is an IROD, review of this site and of this remedy will be ongoing as
the Navy continues to develop final remedial alternatives for OU 2.
1.6 SIGNATURE AND SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY
Captain R.E. Resavage
Commanding Officer, NAS Jacksonville Date
IROO_PSC.42
ASw7o8.95 1-10
-------
• Jd -;5; i;_ 3CRA COMPLIANCE 3E": *j
•36.-2fc.-S5 i-»:5i NO. 318 P003/903
• site preparation and installation of the in aicu mobile stabilization unit,
• berming and lining the area surrounding the pond perimeter to prevent pond
overflow,
In sicu stabilization of polishing pond sludge and water, and
• demobilization and site restoration.
*
Implementation of the interim action will lower the risk of potential future exposure
to humans and the environment by reducing the teachability of contaminated media, and
will close PSC 42 in accordance with RCRA closure requirements. The Navy estimates
chat Che preferred alternative will cost $2,605,000 to construct and will take 2 to
4 months to implement.
1.5 STATUTORY STATEMENT. This interim action is prote^ive of human health and the
environment, complies wieh Federal and State applicabl c relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for this limited scope of action, _r..i is cost effective. Tables
1-2 and 1-3 summarize ARARs for the interim remedial action. Although this interim
action is not intended CD fully address the statutory aandacs for permanence and
treatment to the maximum extent practicable, this action uses treatment for'
contaminated materials and debris and, thus, is in furtherance of that statutory
mandate. Because this action does not constitute the final remedy for contaminated
groundwacer ac OU 2, the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatments that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element will be addressed by che
final response action(s) for groundwater. This interim action does address che
reduction of toxicity and mobility for contaminated materials (soil) considered in
this remedy. Subsequent actions are planned to address the potential threats posed
by the conditions in the groundwater at OU 2.
Because this is an IROD. review of this site and of this remedy will be ongoing as
the Navy continues to develop final remedial alternatives for OU 2.
I.6 SIGNATURE ANS SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE OF THE REMEDY
"N
Captain R.D. Resavage
Commanding Officer, WAS Jacksonville
IROO.PSC.4Z
ASW.Qfl.95 1.10
-------
> i
8,8
O -p
«
-------
O'-n
0> Ji
Table 1-3
Synopsis of Action-Specific Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42 at Operable Unit (OU) 2
Federal or State Standards
and Requirements
Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA) Regula-
tions, Occupational Health
and Safety Regulations [29
CFR, Part 1910. Subpart Z]
RCRA Regulations, Closure
and Post-Closure [40 CFR
Part 264]
RCRA Regulations, Surface
Impoundments [40 CFR Part
264, Subpart K]
RCRA Regulations, Use and
Management of Containers
[40 CFR, Part 264, Subpart 1]
RCRA Regulations, Land
Treatment [40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart L|
Interim Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Rorida
Status Requirements Synopsis
Applicable Establishes permissible exposure limits for workplace
exposure to a specific listing of chemicals.
Relevant and Details general requirements for closure and post-closure
appropriate of hazardous waste facilities, including installation of
groundwater monitoring program.
Relevant and Applies to owners and operators that use surface im-
appropriate poundments to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
Relevant and Sets standards for the storage of containers of hazardous
appropriate waste.
Relevant and Establishes procedures and operating requirements for
appropriate both closure and post-closure of land treatment units.
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
The remedial alternative at PSC 42 will require workers to be
exposed to RCRA-regulated listed hazardous waste. Therefore,
exposure limits set forth in this regulation are applicable.
The substantive requirements of the rule, including groundwater
monitoring, will be met as part of the remedial alternative at this
site. The corrective action plan will be revised to ruflect the
response action selected through the CERCLA process.
Because this remedial action involves the placement of RCRA-
regulated hazardous wastes in surface impoundmonts, this
regulation is relevant and appropriate. Closure requirements
should be considered for remedial actions for surface impound-
ments.
If the implementation of the remedial alternative involves the
storage of containers containing RCRA-regulated waste onsite,
the substantive requirements established in this rule will be met.
The treatment alternative of hazardous waste should meet the
substantive construction, monitoring, operational, and closure
standards established within this regulation.
See notes at end of table.
-------
Table 1-3i (Continued)
Synopsis of Action-Specific Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42 at Operable Unit (OU) 2
Federal or State Standards
and Requirements
RCRA Regulations, Waste
Piles (40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart L]
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Regulations, Criteria for Clas-
sification of Solid Waste Dis-
posal Facilities and Practices
(42 USC 6901-6987 and 40
CFR Part 257]
Chapter 62-730, FAC, Rorida
Hazardous Waste Rule, Au-
gust 1990
Department of Transportation
Rules for Transportation of
Hazardous Materials (49 CFR
Parts 107, 117. 173, 148, and
179)
RCRA Regulations, LDRs for
Newly LJsted Wastes and
Hazardous Debris (40 CFR,
Parts 148.260,261.262,264.
265, 270, and 271)
Interim Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Rorida
Status Requirements Synopsis
Relevant and Establishes procedures and operating requirements for
appropriate both closure and post-closure of waste piles. If removal or
decontamination of all contaminated subsoil is not possi-
ble, closure and post-closure requirements for landfills
must be attained.
Applicable Established criteria for use in determining which solid
waste disposal facilities and practices pose a reasonable
probability of adverse effect on public health or the
environment and, therefore, constitute prohibited open
dumps.
Relevant and Adopts by reference appropriate section of 40 CFR and
appropriate establishes minor additions to these regulations concern-
ing the generation, storage, treatment, transportation, and
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Applicable This regulation established the procedures for packaging,
labeling, and transporting of hazardous materials.
Relevant and This rule sets forth four options for management of
appropriate hazardous debris: (1) treat the debris to performance
standards established in this rule through 1 of 17 approved
technologies, (2) obtain a ruling from USEPA that the
debris no longer contains hazardous debris, (3) treat the
debris using a technology approved through an "equiva-
lent technology demonstration," or (4) treat the debris to
existing LDR standards for wastes contaminating the
debris and continue to manage under RCRA regulations,
Subtitle C.
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Because the remedial action chosen involves the
CERCLA generated RCRA listed hazardous waste
placement of
in waste piles,
the substantive requirements established in this rule will be met.
For waste identified as non-hazardous the substantive require-
ments of this rule will be met.
Both the substantive and permitting requirements
lion will be considered in design of the remedy.
Requirements established in this rule will be met
portation of hazardous material from the site
analysis, treatment, or disposal.
ol this regula-
during trans-
fer laboratory
rf debris is encountered as part of the interim remedial action,
one of the four management options for hazardous debris will be
implemented.
See notes at end of table.
-------
Table 1-3^ (Continued)
Synopsis of Action-Specific Federal and State Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42 at Operable Unit (OU) 2
Interim Record of Decision, Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Florida
Federal or State Standards
and
Requirements
Status
Requirements Synopsis
Consideration in the Remedial Response Process
Occupational Safety and Applicable
Health Act (OSHA) Regula-
tions, General Industry Stan-
dards [29 CFR, Part 1910]
OSHA Regulations, Applicable
Recordkeeping, Reporting,
and Related Regulations (29
CFR, Part 1904]
OSHA Regulations, Health Applicable
and Safety Standards [29
CFR, Part 1926]
Chapter 62-4, FAC, Rorida Applicable
Rules on Permits, May 1991
Chapter 62-736, FAC, Applicable
Florida Rules on Hazardous
Waste Warning Signs, August
1994
This act requires establishment of programs to assure
worker health and safety at hazardous waste sites, in-
cluding employee training requirements.
Provides recordkeeping and reporting requirements
applicable to remedial activities.
Specifies the type of safety training, equipment, and
procedures to be used during site investigation and
remediation.
Establishes procedures for obtaining permits for sources of
pollution.
Requires warning signs at National Priority List (NPL) and
FDEP (formerly FDER) identified hazardous waste sites to
inform the public of the presence of potentially harmful
conditions.
This regulation is applicable because during remedial action at
the site, requirements of these regulations must be maintained.
Recordkeeping and reporting requirements defined in this rule
will be followed during site remediation.
All phases of the remedial response project should be executed
in compliance with this regulation.
Substantive permitting requirements of this rule will be met
during the remedial action at PSC 42.
Because Naval Air Station Jacksonville is currently listed on the
NPL, this requirement is applicable.
Notes: NAS = naval air station.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations.
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
CWA = Clean Water Act.
POTW = publicly owned treatment works.
FOTW = federally owned treatment works.
USC = U.S. Code.
FAC = Rorida Administrative Code.
USEPA =. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FDEP = Rorida Department of Environmental Protection.
FDER = Rorida Department of Environmental Regulation.
-------
— 2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION. NAS Jacksonville is located in Duval
County. Florida, on the western bank of the St. Johns River; OU 2 is located in the
northern part of the installation (Figure 1-3). The official mission of NAS
Jacksonville is to provide facilities, service, and managerial support for the
operation and maintenance of naval weapons and aircraft to operating forces of the
U.S. Navy as designated by the Chief of Naval Operations. Some of the tasks required
to accomplish this mission include operation of fuel storage facilities, performance
of aircraft maintenance, maintenance and operation of engine repair facilities and
test cells for turbojet engines, and support of special weapons systems.
The land use west of OU 2 is primarily residential and recreational. The Timuquana
Country Club and Golf Course border OU 2 to the west. Access to the country club is
restricted to members and guests. Two private residences abut the NAS boundary on
the northwest side of OU 2 near the St. Johns River. A residential area (trailer park)
also abuts the NAS boundary west of the Timuquana Country Club; the distance from this
trailer park to OU 2 is about 3,000 feet. Access to OU 2 is limited because of its
proximity to the NAS taxiways and runways, which have additional security requirements.
A chainlink fence along the base boundary and continuous patrols make access*by
unauthorized personnel unlikely and limited.
2.2 SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. The area incorporated into NAS
Jacksonville has been used for U.S. Navy operations since 1940. OU 2, which is located
on the northern part of NAS Jacksonville, has historically been used primarily for
-wastewater treatment. Its secondary use has been for fire-fighting training.
Past operations at the wastewater treatment plant located within OU 2 that possibly
affected soil quality include:
drying sludge in unlined beds (PSCs 41 and 43),
discharge of treated water to an unlined polishing pond (PSC 42), and
land disposal of sludge removed from the drying beds (PSCs 3 and 4).
In addition to the treatment plant, a former fire-fighting training area (PSC 2) is
located within OU 2. Burning fuels within the unlined pit at the training area has
affected soil quality at PSC 2.
Probable waste materials disposed of at OU 2 include aviation fuel and waste petroleum
products (at the former fire-fighting training area), inorganic and organic compounds
(at the domestic and industrial wastewater sludge drying beds), and asbestos (at PSC
4) . PSC 4 will be evaluated during the site-wide Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to be conducted in 1995. An FRI/FFS study has been completed
for PSCs 2, 41, and 43, and the IROD was signed on September 29, 1994. Interim
remedial action for PSCs 2, 41, and 43 is scheduled to occur in 1995. An FRI/FFS has
also been completed at PSCs 3 and 42. As a result of this FRI/FFS, it was determined
that there was no need for an interim remedial action at PSC 3. Therefore, PSC 3 will
be included in the site-wide RI/FS with PSC 4. Investigations and site history of
PSC 42 are described briefly in the following paragraphs.
IROO_PSC.42
ASW70B.95 2-1
-------
PSC 42 is the wastewater treatment plant effluent polishing pond. It has a capacity
of approximately 5.7 million gallons and was built in 1970 to provide final clarifi-
cation and settling for approximately 2.3 million gallons per day of treated wastewater
effluent. It currently contains water from precipitation and seepage from groundwater.
The pond was removed from service in 1987. It appears that the surface water level
in the polishing pond is controlled by both rainfall events and fluctuations in the
groundwater elevation.
The USEPA classified the polishing pond as a surface water impoundment to treat RCRA-
listed hazardous wastes F006 and F019 (i.e., wastewater treatment sludge from
electroplating operations and from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum)
(Process Code T02). The hazardous constituents for which the sludge is listed consist
of cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed) for F006 and
hexavalent chromium and cyanide (complexed) for F019.
In 1988, after a review of groundwater monitoring data, the FDEP issued a Consent Order
requiring closure of the effluent polishing pond. In response to the Consent Order,
NAS Jacksonville developed a closure plan for the wastewater treatment plant polishing
pond (PSC 42). This closure plan also included PSCs 41 and 43 at OU 2, and in
September 1991, FDEP issued a permit for closure and post-closure at PSCs 41, 42, and
43.
As provided in Section VII of the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA), parties should
intend to integrate the Navy's CERCLA response obligations and RCRA corrective action
obligations into any remedial actions. As such, the FFA establishes the mechanism
whereby remediation of the PSC will occur under the provisions of CERCLA with RCRA!
considered as an ARAR with respect to releases of hazardous waste. Further, the FFA
-states that permits shall be modified again after the CERCLA process has resulted in
the final selection of a remedial action.
PSC 42 has been investigated for groundwater compliance with RCRA standards since 1983.
Monitoring wells in the vicinity of the pond were sampled and analyzed quarterly for
1 year beginning in 1984 in accordance with an FDEP and RCRA closure and post-closure
permit. Inorganic constituents exceeded permit standards at the point of compliance
monitoring wells in the shallow aquifer zone.
During July 1994, PSC 42 was included in a sampling event to assess the potential or
actual contamination of surface water, sediment, and biota at three surface water
bodies located within NAS Jacksonville, and to report any constituent concentrations
that were greater than standards or guidelines established by the Federal ambient water
quality criteria or Florida surface water classification standards. Details concerning
this event can be found in the Sampling Event Report Number 17, Electrofishing Fisher-
ies Investigation at Selected Water Bodies, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida
(ABB-Environmental Services, Inc. [ABB-ES] 1993b). Sediment samples were analyzed
for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesti-
cides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and inorganics. According to the Sampling
Event Report Number 17, PSC 42 contained levels of inorganic compounds above background
levels in surface water and sediment samples.
2.3 HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. The FRI/FFS report for PSC 42 at OU 2
and the Proposed Plan were completed and released to the public on May 10, 1995. These
documents and other Installation Restoration program information are available for
public review in the Information Repository and Administrative Record. The repository
IROD_PSC.42
ASW"08.95 2-2
-------
is maintained at—the Charles D. Webb Wesconnett Branch of the Jacksonville Public
Library in Jacksonville, Florida. The notice of availability of these documents was
published in The Florida. Times Union on May 10, 1995.
A 30-day public comment period was held from May 10, 1995, to June 9. 1995. Written
comments were received during the public comment period. Written comments and
questions asked by the public are summarized and addressed in Appendix A, Responsive-
ness Summary.
2.4 SCOPE AND ROLE OF INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION. A focused risk evaluation (FRE) was
conducted on the soil surrounding the polishing pond, PSC 42. The FRE did not address
the sludge and water present in the polishing pond; however, these materials are being
treated as part of this remedial action. A risk assessment on the soil surrounding
the pond indicated unacceptable risks were not predicted from exposure to surface soil
at PSC 42 for either humans, terrestrial wildlife, plants, or soil invertebrates.
RCRA closure requirements support removal of the source. Therefore, source removal
was determined to be the interim remedial action objective for PSC 42. The interim
remedial action objective for PSC 42 is to reduce future potential risks to human
health and the environment and comply with the RCRA closure plan approved for this
PSC, as discussed in the FRI/FFS report. Metal contaminants are potentially acting
as a continuing source of soil and groundwater contamination at OU 2. The purpose
of this interim remedial action is to remove this source of contamination to the soil
and groundwater at OU 2. Based on previous investigations and the evaluation of ARARs
for this site, the interim remedial action identified is in situ stabilization of the
polishing pond sludge and standing water.
Upon completion of the overall RI/FS for OU 2, the need for remedial action to address
groundwater contamination will be evaluated. This IROD addresses an interim source
control for contaminated materials at PSC 42 and is consistent with any future remedial
activities that may take place at the site.
2 . 5 SITE CHARACTERISTICS. Sampling and analysis of soil, surface water, and sediment
found within the effluent polishing pond (PSC 42) were completed as part of the focused
RI/FS investigation conducted in September 1994. Sail and sediment samples were
analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, PCBs, and inorganics. Surface water samples
from the polishing pond were analyzed for target analyte list (TAL) inorganics and
miscellaneous wet chemistry parameters. In addition to analyzing the surface water
and sediment within the polishing pond, surface soil samples around the perimeter of
the pond were analyzed to investigate the possible migration of contaminants from the
potential of past flooding and maintenance activities. All surface soil and sediment
samples were first screened for the following metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
and nickel. The list of selected metals for screening is based on previous soil and
groundwater analytical results (ABB-ES, 1992b). Based on the findings of the
screening, the soil and sediment were analyzed for TAL inorganics. As part of the
base-wide groundwater modeling effort conducted in collaboration with the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), four piezometer wells were installed on the south and west
sides (potentially upgradient) of PSC 42. In addition to groundwater elevation data,
groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for contaminants of potential concern
(CPC) , target compound list (TCL) , and TAL parameters and selected water quality tests
from the four piezometer wells and two existing downgradient wells. Groundwater data
IROD PSC.42
ASW~06.95 2-3
-------
collection was "intended to provide data to support an evaluation of remedial'
alternatives at PSC 42. The results of the FRI/FFS investigation, which was designed
to characterize the extent of metal contamination at PSC 42, are summarized in this
section.
Surrounding soil, surface water, and sediment samples at PSC 42 contained inorganics
related to the operation of the polishing pond. Fifty-six soil samples were collected
from the soil surrounding the pond for screening of the five metals. From the
screening data, chromium, lead, and cadmium were the most often detected metals in
the soil around PSC 42. Chromium and lead were detected in all 56 samples collected
(including 6 field duplicates). All of the detections of chromium were above
background concentrations, whereas only 40 percent of the lead samples were above
background concentrations. Cadmium was detected in 46 of 56 samples and nickel was
detected in 7 of 56 samples. All detections of cadmium and nickel were above
background concentrations. Arsenic was below detection limits in all 56 screening
samples collected. Twelve samples were collected for TAL inorganic analytical results
to confirm the detection of the above selected screening metals. Lead was detected
in all 12 samples (including 2 field duplicates), chromium was detected in 11 of 12
samples, and cadmium was detected in 7 of 12 samples. Iron and aluminum were present
in all 12 samples. Antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, copper, magnesium, nickel,
potassium, sodium, thallium, and vanadium were not detected. Soil samples from areas
surrounding the effluent polishing pond were also found to contain a pesticide, which
does not appear to be related to PSC 42 operations and may have been a result of past
base-wide pest control programs.
Seventeen sediment samples (including two field duplicates) were collected for
screening of the five metals. From the screening data, chromium, cadmium, lead, and
n"icke,l_ were detected in all 17 samples (including 2 field duplicates). There was no
detection of arsenic in the sediment samples. Four sediment samples were collected
for TAL inorganic analyses to confirm the detection of the above selected screening
metals. Fifteen TAL inorganic parameters were detected in all four sediment samples.
Antimony, arsenic, and selenium were detected in one of the four samples, and sodium
and nickel were detected in two of four samples. There are no detections of cobalt,
potassium, or thallium. Two of seventeen sediment samples were submitted for total
and hexavalent chromium analysis. Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the sample,
indicating that the chromium in the sediment is most likely in the trivalent oxidation
state.
Three surface samples in the pond were collected and analyzed for TAL inorganics.
Metals detected in all three surface water samples include aluminum, barium, calcium,
chromium, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, and sodium. Zinc was
not detected in two of three samples. There were no detections of antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, copper, mercury, selenium, silver, vanadium, and cyanide.
Investigation of groundwater at PSC 42 in the FRI/FFS was conducted solely for the
purpose of gathering data to support an evaluation of remedial alternatives for the
sediment and surface water. A full evaluation of the groundwater analytical data was
deferred until the execution of the overall OU2 RI/FS report.
2.6 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. An FRE was completed as a means of characterizing
potential risks to humans and the environment that could be attributed to exposure
to contaminants present in the soil surrounding the polishing pond, PSC 42. The FRE
did not address the sludge and water present in PSC 42 (polishing pond) ; however, these
IROO PSC.42
2-4
-------
materials are be-tng treated as part of this remedial action. A risk assessment on
the soil surrounding the pond indicated unacceptable risks were not predicted from
exposure to surface soil at PSC 42 for either humans, terrestrial wildlife, plants.
or soil invertebrates. However, R.CRA closure requirements support removal of the
source, the sediment and surrounding surface soil, to comply with ARARs for PSC 42.
2.7 SELECTED REMEDY. Of the three alternatives evaluated, the selected interim
remedial action for source control at the PSC 42 at OU 2 is Alternative 3, described
in the FRI/FFS report for OU 2. Alternative 3 involves:
site preparation and installation of the in situ mobile stabilization unit,
• berming and lining the area surrounding the pond perimeter to prevent pond
overflow,
in situ stabilization of polishing pond sludge and water, and
demobilization and site restoration.
The concentrations of contaminants in the materials at PSC 42 are above the RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for those hazardous wastes and, thus,
would require treatment prior to disposal. As previously discussed, the materials
are contaminated with metals. The treatment technology proposed in this alternative
is in situ stabilization, which involves immobilizing the metals in the contaminated
material by adding a setting agent such as Portland cement. Metals are not destroyed
by this treatment process, but rather become physically and chemically entrapped in
"the resulting material, which can take the form of a semisolid to a solid. Long-term
monitoring of this treated soil is contemplated under RCRA and will be incorporated
in the final remedy for OU 2.
The sides of the polishing pond will be bermed to the necessary elevation to provide
room for the added stabilization mixture; i.e., concrete, sand, and any reagents.
After the in situ stabilization process, the product and contaminated pond water will
remain in place.
Once treatment is completed, the site will be graded and seeded for revegetation.
All equipment and features associated with the interim remediation would be removed
at the end of the process.
The Navy estimates the total cost of this interim remedial action to be $2,605,000
to construct and maintain.
2 . 8 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. The interim remedial action selected for implementation
at PSC 42 is consistent with CERCLA and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP). The selected remedies are protective of human health and the
environment, attain ARARs, and are cost effective. The selected remedies also satisfy
the statutory preference for remedial treatment of metals that significantly reduces
the mobility, toxicity, or volume of hazardous substances as a principal element.
Because this remedy is not intended as the final action for remediation of the
contaminated soil and groundwater at OU 2, the statutory preference for treatment of
this media will be addressed during the final FS for OU 2. Long-term monitoring of
IROD_PSC.42
ASW.06.93 2-5
-------
this created sort is contemplated under RCRA and will also be incorporated into the
final remedy for OU 2.
Additionally, the selected remedy uses alternate treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because this remedy is not
intended as the final remedial effort for groundwater at OU 2, any contaminated media
remaining onsite after this interim remedial action will be addressed during the
overall RI/FS for OU 2 and the resulting Record of Decision.
2.9 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. There are no significant changes in this
interim remedial action from that described in the Proposed Plan.
IROO_PSC.42
ASW.06.95 2-6
-------
APPENDIX A
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
Appendix A, Responsiveness Summary
The Responsiveness Summary serves three purposes. First, it provides regulatory
agencies with information about the community preferences regarding the remedial
alternatives presented for Potential Source of Contamination (PSC) 42, at Operable
Unit (OU) 2, Naval Air Station (NAS) Jacksonville. Second, the Responsiveness Summary
documents how public comments have been considered and integrated into the decision-
making process. Third, it provides the Navy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) , and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) with the opportunity
to respond to each comment submitted.
The Focused Remedial Investigation and Focused Feasibility Study for PSCs 3 and 42
and the Proposed Plan for PSC 42 were made available in an information repository
maintained at the Charles D. Uebb Wesconnett Branch of the Jacksonville Public Library.
The following comments were received during the public comment period.
IROD_PSC.*2
ASW.06.9S A-1
-------
So
*.
Responsiveness Summary
Interim Record of Decision
Potential Source of Contamination 42 at Operable Unit 2
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Rorida
Comment
Response
NO COMMENTS RECEIVED
-------
•s
s*
so O V ••*
fife,* a
» a« §
- g.fi ±3
^ + -~
o ****
w S5 •**
fi *5 ^r
£00
* «
+* J- .S
s v «s
s-o a
5 =
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your
order from our collection of more than 2 million
technical reports.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services
Department at (703) 387-4660.
Always think of NTIS when you want:
• Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibillion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government.
• R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.
NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
information:
• The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
datatlles produced by Federal agencies.
• The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.
For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
foreign Government technology. Call (703) 487-4650 or send this
sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
Ask for catalog, PR-827.
Name
Address
Telephone.
-Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government
Research and Technology
------- |